To cry over state pension age speculation rise to 75-81

[feellikeahugefailure]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/12179375/Work-till-youre-75-or-even-81-under-Government-review-of-state-pension-age.html

Where has it all gone wrong? My parents could buy a home one one income for 3 times annual wage. Dad retired at 55, mum never needed to work and has been claiming a state pension for over a decade since 60. I do a similar job to my dad.

Where I live the average house price is 13 times my wage. My pension I've been paying into for over 10 years will if I keep paying into it for almost 40 more years give me 2'000 a year if it does averagely and 1'000 if it does poorly, and it probably will do poorly. Then no state pension until I'm about to drop dead. Can't afford a house or to put money away for retirement.

I will get shot down in flames here but the problem is essentially the cost of houses. House price inflation really kicked off when the norm was for dual incomes in families rather than a single breadwinner. House price inflation is an absolute curse and has done this country no favours at all. I was always amazed at people saying "ooh I have made 60K on my flat in 2 years" no you haven't you haven't, it simply means that the next house you buy has just become 150K more expensive than it should be

Completely and utterly agree with this. It has spawned all manner of problems.

I'd agree, but I also think it has something to do with the inter generational issue.

There are lots of young people out there who are working hard, paying tax, more NI than has ever been charged before, higher levels of VAT, and as the studies published today show, being paid less (in real terms) than their forebears.

One of the issues being that the settlements paid to people who have retired, or for whom retirement is imminent are actually far too generous. Final salary pensions should have been scrapped in the 70s but weren't because of the vested interests of those in power at the time.

Therefore the young must pay in more, and recieve less, as well as having paid for their education,

Its a world wide issue, a big one, and I feel its one that will cause major problems in the future.

You know a lot of final salary schemes outside London are actually in surplus and see no issues for the future? My Local Government one is well in surplus.

Lots are in surplus atm cleaty, the problem is that they won't be in future, due to the number of people retiring and the number that have already retired.

A lot of these professional pensions will pay out far more to those who in reciept of the final salary type benefits than they paid in, and will pay for longer. Problem comes when those who are working are paying higher levels of tax and contribution but are going to recieve a very different settlement.

What about the people with dementia / memory loss as they get older. It's on the rise. You cannot work at anything or even manage your own life if you are suffering from this.

My husband and I are "baby boomers". It's all a myth. I am 69 and he is 75 - we are both still working- albeit self employed. We have worked, paid taxes and NI and paid into our pension funds all our lives - not spending lavishly on holidays etc. I worked part time when the kids were under five and then full time as an employee of a Council when the youngest started school. I also worked part time in our business doing the accounts and office work when my husband started it - so I had to pay two lots of NI into the system- (one for being self employed!) We worked to pay off our mortgage and provide for our children. We didn't claim benefits and our property will be sold if we need it for our care costs. what's left - if any will go to our kids to help them in the future. Do I feel entitled to my pension- you bet!!

*80s mum i never clear my overdraft, only really buy essentials, havent had a holiday in many years, all my clothes seem have holes in that im forever fixing, have had to get emergency loans after being ill as I dont get sick pay.

Then again I did just buy a mattress protector, i guess thats me being wasteful with my money.*

Maybe you could pay off the overdraft with some of the £ few thousand in savings you say you have in another thread?

I'm sorry Bebe, but anecdotes or personal experience don't trump the data.

There are lots of studies out there showing how the young (of which I am not one) are having their wealth transferred to the older generations.

Lets take an example,( I missed out on the boomer generation, but have siblings in it, I'm a Gen Xer) the current "milenials" are paid less in real terms than their parents were at the same age for similar jobs, they pay higher rates of indirect tax, and yet taxes on the highest earners and on wealth (which is more likely to be held by the older generation ) are at a historic low.

You may have "earned" your pension, by paying national insurance but it was not hypothecated and has been spent paying the pensions of our parents generation. Those of us who are nearing retirement or are retired may have to accept a lower level of increase than the "triple lock" idea in order for pensions to be viable in future. Heating allowance should be means tested and the same with the free bus passes.

It is certainly an inequitable deal that our children should receive lower levels of income, higher bills for education, a more regressive tax regime than we did and yet pay higher amounts of tax in order to work longer than their parents ( and in fact in order to be able to support their parents).

We're all fucked, basically.

Exactly, lurked. Bebe, it is your children and grandchildren supporting your retirement, not you

"Heating allowance should be means tested and the same with the free bus passes."

I'd hazard a guess and say that would be more expensive than just dishing out the benefits.

You could do it very easily, those pensioners who get enough to pay tax, don't get it.

Really agree with your last two posts lurked. Easy and virtually free to means test those benefits and one persons anecdotal doesnt trump the stats.

One thing I'm absolutely SICK of is ostentatious parsimony and the view that lurks behind it that because it was difficult for person A, it should therefore be difficult for everyone else.

e.g. 'I have worked hard my whole life. I ate nothing but rice for five years, wore rags, didn't heat my house in -10 degrees C, and drank nothing but water to save up for a deposit on a house. Nowadays young people are so entitled, thinking they have a right to food and an occasional night out. If only they lived like me, they would all be OK'.

This argument is statistically incorrect (it's demonstrably true that it IS much harder for the majority millenials to get on the housing ladder than it was for the over 40s). But leaving that aside, WHAT THE HELL kind of a way is this to run a society? We shouldn't compete in some obscene race to the bottom! The ideal shouldn't be to take the most parsimonious and miserable existence and make it the basis for everybody. If it was hard for you, you should want to ensure that your kids and grandkids don't have to go through the same kind of suffering. FFS!

It is of course true to say my parents were subject to bombs in WWII and then national services and rationing, no central heating and the like. The fact most people had very hard lives is just stating facts. It wasn't a wonderful golden era.

For the last 10 years in the US and UK pay has largely been frozen although this profilgate Tory Government who seem to be spend spend spend have just announced pay rises in the public sector (when the private sector does not get wage rises - so really the state continues to spend money all the time - our money). Howefer some pay has gone up. My daughters' pay as young solicitors in London is on a par with mine at the same stage 30 years before. Indeed in law when I started there were no high earning partners on £1m a year. That pay jump for a very very few who earn a lot happened later. When I started they were having to commute in from Brighton and Kent because they could not afford houses in London - then we had a few boom years (and also crashes) when some people's pay got quite high.

On the pension issue see www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/325315/pensioners-incomes-series-statistics-july-2014.pdf

"Between 2011/12 and 2012/13, gross mean income grew from £475 to £477, unchanged in percentage terms. Net mean income Before Housing Costs grew from £395 to £397, by 1 per cent, and net me
an income After Housing Costs grew from £363 to £364, unchanged in percentage terms.
In 2012/13 state benefits accounted for 44 per cent of pensioners’ incomes,occupational pensions made up 27 per cent, earnings 17 per cent
, investment income 7 per cent, and personal pensions 4 per cent".

So it looks like the average pensioner has about £400 a week per couple I assume = £20.800. I thought many were on just basic state pensino however whic is more like £7k per person a year but that might be the difference between mean/average and median. Anyway many pensioners are not in high incomes but they have certainly had rises due to the stupid triple lock on state pensions the state introduced, where lower paid workers have not.

"just announced pay rises in the public sector"

Yes of 1%, following three year pay freezes when the average inflation annually over that period was 3 %, so that means that in effect even the pay rise counts as a pay cut.

Oh and don't start with the "our" money claptrap, you benefit from living in the society ( and if you are as rich as you say you you benefit far more than most) and the public sector provides extremely valuable services. It beggars belief that we adjust pensions through the triple lock but pay public sector workers less than inflation.

I do agree on pensioners though, £20,000 a year with little to no housing cost is a great income. Oh and also the SPADS to the government got an 11% pay rise after the election, funny how they are so valuable but teachers, doctors and nurses aren't.

Totally agree with last poster - those in the public sector have fared much worse than those in the private sector in terms of pay increases in recent years. Have suffered a very substantial real terms cut.

Disgraceful that the government has backed out of getting rid of the hugely unjust 40% tax reduction for pension contributions by the rich. Supposedly afraid that this would put them off saving for retirement. The rich ensure that they remain rich in retirement. It is those on middle and low incomes who need help with saving for retirement, yet it is the wealthy who are being subsidised.

Quill

You are aware that a heck of a lot of private firms have also had pay freezes for years?

The private sector had average wage growth of 3.6 % last year, far higher than the 1% that the public services got.

Admittedly many normal workers in the private sector have been shafted while directors and managers raise their own pay by much higher levels.

One of the unfortunate impacts of the financial crisis is that people have become far more accepting of this, the shock of the crisis and the fear of losing your job keeps them from complaining. Whilst the top tier pay themselves far more than is proportionally appropriate for their efforts.

Even in the "boom" years wage growth in many sectors was kept low, with many excuses given for that this, whilst managers, directors and shareholders made out like bandits. People didn't really notice this then because credit was cheap and abundant, its how we've ended up in the situation that we are in now, with stagnant wage growth (in fact in proportion) since the 1970s.

The private sector had average wage growth of 3.6 % last year, far higher than the 1% that the public services got.

source?

www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/12/private-sector-pay-rising-fastest-14-years-thinktank

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/private-sector-wages-growing-three-times-quicker-than-public-sector-a6690026.html

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34267120

I'm not talking crap you know... I do know my stuff.

Lots of pensioners do still have housing costs, like my parents who pay rent. Not everyone owns their own home.

But lots don't! More pensioners are likely to live in social housing too. Again, we can't talk in absolutes.

Those who are home owners i.e. better off pensioners, do need less to live on than those who rent. My parents have far below that average, and have to pay out a high rent to stay in their house.

I'd be in favour of means testing for the pension. It needs to go up for the poorest (it's currently terrible), but those with a lot of accumulated wealth/assets should receive far less, if anything. With huge issues of intergenerational injustice at work here, working out some kind of tax solution to get those pensioners who are incredibly wealthy to contribute to the public funds has to be part of the solution too.